topic Re: Integrity Check problem when adding a node? in Alfresco Archive

Integrity Check problem when adding a node?

blatwurst — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:59:26 GMT

Can someone please help me understand what's going on here? Why does this: obj.addAspect("app:configurable"); obj = obj.createNode("app:configurations", "app:configurations", "app:configurations");‍‍‍produce this error:Invalid property value: Node: workspace://SpacesStore/c3764e1f-

Re: Integrity Check problem when adding a node?

kevinr — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:28:54 GMT

The cm:name field (the first parameter to the createNode() call) has restriction on the characters that can be used - so it is valid for CIFS/FTP/Windows/Webdav etc.etc. as this is the actual display name of the node.

So this is correct:


        obj.addAspect("app:configurable");
        obj = obj.createNode("Some Config Folder", "app:configurations", "app:configurations");
‍‍‍‍

You say:

then the name of the resulting association is "cm:configurations"

The association name should be 'app:configurations' as that is the third param to the call.

I've just tested this with a quick test script:


document.addAspect("app:configurable");
document.createNode("Some Config Folder", "app:configurations", "app:configurations");
‍‍‍‍

Running this (as a script action) against a document and then examining the document in the Node Browser shows that it has a single child node with the association type:
{http://www.alfresco.org/model/application/1.0}configurations
and name of:
{http://www.alfresco.org/model/content/1.0}Some Config Folder

Which is correct.

Thanks,

Kevin

Re: Integrity Check problem when adding a node?

blatwurst — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:12:49 GMT

Thanks Kevin for the quick reply.

In the Node Browser, view a "person" node. Look at the Children section of the report, and notice that the Child Name for the "configurations" child is "{http://www.alfresco.org/model/application/1.0}configurations". The interesting thing here is that the name "configurations" is not in the "cm" namespace but rather the "app" namespace. I'm wondering how I reproduce this situation; to have the Child Name be in my own namespace.

One thing I just noticed is that the actual "cm:name" property for this node is something different…it's the GUID of the node. So I guess that name is different so that it satisfies the integrity contstraint on a name. So then, maybe my question is how you can build a parent-child relationship such that the Child Name is one thing but the child node's "cm:name" property is something else (as is the case for person->configurations).

Maybe this doesn't matter much. Maybe it's just the case that all nodes produced by the JavaScript API must have a Child Name that matches the "cm:name" property, and that name must always be in the "cm" namespace. I just want to make sure…I'm thinking that without a namespace qualification, a collision will be somewhat inevitable.

Thanks for your help!